By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
With the support of three justices, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a Court of Appeals holding dealing with the effective date of increased bodily injury and death liability limits for no-fault insurance policies.
An order in Bonter v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company reversed the Supreme Court and held that insurance policies in effect after July 1, 2020, were required to include increases minimum liability limits.
The order was split 3-2 with Justice Richard Bernstein and Justice Noah Hood not participating in the case. Justice Brian Zahra dissented with Justice Elizabeth Welch joining his statement.
The split is unusual with just three justices necessary to reverse the Court of Appeals opinion.
Bonter is similar to another case the Supreme Court is considering, Progressive v. Pena, but that case was being held in abeyance as the court considered this one.
In Pena, the Court of Appeals held that the 2019 laws do not apply to policies issued before the statutory changes in coverage took effect but whose terms extended beyond July 2, 2020 (the effective date).
In Bonter, Progressive issued the policy on June 19, 2020, which is after the effective date of the no-fault laws at issue. However, the bodily limit increases were not required to take effect until July 2, 2020. The policy in question was in effect through December 2020.
In this case, the justices said the policy “failed to comply with the minimum requirements of the no-fault act”
In dissenting, Zahra – with Welch signing on – noted the Court of Appeals relied on Pena when making its decision and the court did not reverse that decision.
He also took aim at the Legislature, saying the laws were poorly written.
“This case presents the exact same legal issue as that presented in Pena. In that case, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the 2019 amendments of MCL 500.3009 automatically increased liability coverage for preexisting policies whose terms extended beyond July 1, 2020,” he wrote. “Instead, the panel analyzed the plain language of MCL 500.3009 to conclude that the Legislature intended for the heightened liability limits to apply only to policies delivered or issued after July 1, 2020. I agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding in Pena and with the Court of Appeals’ application of that holding in this case.”
Gongwer News Service
With the support of three justices, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a Court of Appeals holding dealing with the effective date of increased bodily injury and death liability limits for no-fault insurance policies.
An order in Bonter v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company reversed the Supreme Court and held that insurance policies in effect after July 1, 2020, were required to include increases minimum liability limits.
The order was split 3-2 with Justice Richard Bernstein and Justice Noah Hood not participating in the case. Justice Brian Zahra dissented with Justice Elizabeth Welch joining his statement.
The split is unusual with just three justices necessary to reverse the Court of Appeals opinion.
Bonter is similar to another case the Supreme Court is considering, Progressive v. Pena, but that case was being held in abeyance as the court considered this one.
In Pena, the Court of Appeals held that the 2019 laws do not apply to policies issued before the statutory changes in coverage took effect but whose terms extended beyond July 2, 2020 (the effective date).
In Bonter, Progressive issued the policy on June 19, 2020, which is after the effective date of the no-fault laws at issue. However, the bodily limit increases were not required to take effect until July 2, 2020. The policy in question was in effect through December 2020.
In this case, the justices said the policy “failed to comply with the minimum requirements of the no-fault act”
In dissenting, Zahra – with Welch signing on – noted the Court of Appeals relied on Pena when making its decision and the court did not reverse that decision.
He also took aim at the Legislature, saying the laws were poorly written.
“This case presents the exact same legal issue as that presented in Pena. In that case, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the 2019 amendments of MCL 500.3009 automatically increased liability coverage for preexisting policies whose terms extended beyond July 1, 2020,” he wrote. “Instead, the panel analyzed the plain language of MCL 500.3009 to conclude that the Legislature intended for the heightened liability limits to apply only to policies delivered or issued after July 1, 2020. I agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding in Pena and with the Court of Appeals’ application of that holding in this case.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
